A Constitutional right to news?
I disagree with William Safire's stance that jailing journalists who refuse to obey a court order somehow violates a right, much less a public right.
Safire testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 20th and urged them to pass a law that would grant "reporters" the right to obtain knowledge about criminal activity without having to report it (unless there was an imminent national security risk involved).
Excuse me, but when did we elevate journalists to a special platform above ordinary citizens? Who gets to define what "journalist" means? Does Matt Drudge qualify? Do I? Will the New York Times have to approve?
Safire opined:
The press's freedom to publish the news without prior restraint is not in doubt. But now under attack is what comes before publication: the ability of journalists to gather the news. To do that work effectively, we often must have inside sources willing tell us what government or corporate officials often do not want the public to know.
Reading between the lines we see that anonymity is desired because often these sources are breaking the law by revealing confidential information. Why should a journalist help someone break the law? In my profession when someone asks me to break the law I am bound by ethics and the law to walk away. Why should journalism be any different? I have to say, if you can find a way to do your job without breaking the law perhaps you are in the wrong line of work!
Safire clearly understands that the exceptions are granted to people when circumstances demand it, but in those cases there are professional medical considerations or legal defense reasons:
Would this mean that journalists get special treatment denied to other citizens? In this case of keeping the flow of information free, "no man is above the law" is a slogan, not an argument. Before compelling a person to testify, the law traditionally recognizes the strong social value of considering the confidentiality of spouses, of lawyers, doctors, and clergy; in 1996 that was extended to psychotherapists. Members of those groups are not "above" the law because the law recognizes competing values; judges must balance the citizen's obligation to give evidence with society's obligation to protect relationships built on solemn confidences.
Safire would have us believe that a reporting digging for dirt is in the same circumstances as a doctor, lawyer or priest hearing private information. What Safire neglects to mention is that in all those cases the person involved is talking about themselves (or in court, the spouse of a defendant). Safire would have us believe that a source talking about a third person (or persons) deserves the same degree of privacy.
Obviously I disagree. If the information is worth sharing, then it is worth sharing in a lawful manner.
What Safire also fails to mention is that journalists are jailed because a judge has determined that the information is required for a criminal investigation. Any other person called to testify certainly cannot simply say "I promised not to tell" and walk out the door free of consequences. The oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, not "the truth as other people have allowed me to say it".
Safire claims that it is the way that "business is done":
You run into each other at a ballgame or at a dinner, shmooz a little on a bunch of topics, pick up a lead or toss out an idea, later act on it or pass it along to a colleague or forget it. That's been my experience inside and outside the White House; it's how information flows in real life, and it's how the public gets the news beyond the handouts. We slam the door on that at great peril to our freedom.
Let me change the above a bit: you sit down next to a corporate executive who tells you his firm is about to be bought out for a hefty premium above current market value. Is the journalist still allowed to use this information free of criminal consequences? Would you or I be able to?
Of course not! That would be called insider trading. Similarly if a source reveals confidential information that cannot be lawfully revealed, how is it different if the information regards non-financial matters? Indeed, if the information reveals criminal activity then the obligation should be to report it (or walk away from the "deal"), not to embrace the criminal activity because "your job depends on it".
Safire laments the decline of gossip in his profession:
But now we see a reporter in prison, for not revealing part of a conversation she may have had about a story she did not write. As a result, many of us feel a general chill in the air, and will think twice about what we say in private to each other as well as outsiders. I know that lifelong friends and sources will be forced to be guarded in what we say anywhere about everything. In the new world of threatened contempt there are no innocent questions, and a grunt or a nod can get you in trouble.
To which I say good! It will be better if that happens sooner rather than later, too.
Safire claims he cannot do his job:
And there is a more specific chilling effect taking place right now. It imposes a mental "prior restraint" on the gathering of news and the expression of opinion. I've always been able to write what I have learned and what I believe "without fear or favor", freely taking on the high and mighty. But I cannot do that this morning.
I disagree. He has nothing to fear as long as he is not breaking the law, or helping someone else to do so.
Perhaps Mr. Safire realizes the weakness of his argument as he gets a bit hysterical at the end:
I must not anger or upset those who control her incarceration, and who repeatedly threaten to pile on with longer punishment as a criminal unless she betrays her principles as a reporter. Because any harsh criticism of them from me might well be taken out on her, I am constrained to speak gently, as if concerned about treatment of a hostage. That duress, I submit, is an example of what Justice Brennan had in mind about a "chilling effect". I can testify that it works all too well, which is why I will now shut up and look to Congress to pass a law balancing our values and taking the chill out of the air.
People who break the law are hostages? Mr. Safire is starting to sound like an anarchist. Or, given his fear of the judiciary, a militia movement supporter. Either way he has slipped out of the mainstream...at least on this issue.
It is always enlightening to see how people who consider themselves "average" go to extremes to protect that which concerns them the most. Perhaps something good will come of so many journalists experiencing so much angst over this issue.
I won't hold my breath.
Safire testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 20th and urged them to pass a law that would grant "reporters" the right to obtain knowledge about criminal activity without having to report it (unless there was an imminent national security risk involved).
Excuse me, but when did we elevate journalists to a special platform above ordinary citizens? Who gets to define what "journalist" means? Does Matt Drudge qualify? Do I? Will the New York Times have to approve?
Safire opined:
The press's freedom to publish the news without prior restraint is not in doubt. But now under attack is what comes before publication: the ability of journalists to gather the news. To do that work effectively, we often must have inside sources willing tell us what government or corporate officials often do not want the public to know.
Reading between the lines we see that anonymity is desired because often these sources are breaking the law by revealing confidential information. Why should a journalist help someone break the law? In my profession when someone asks me to break the law I am bound by ethics and the law to walk away. Why should journalism be any different? I have to say, if you can find a way to do your job without breaking the law perhaps you are in the wrong line of work!
Safire clearly understands that the exceptions are granted to people when circumstances demand it, but in those cases there are professional medical considerations or legal defense reasons:
Would this mean that journalists get special treatment denied to other citizens? In this case of keeping the flow of information free, "no man is above the law" is a slogan, not an argument. Before compelling a person to testify, the law traditionally recognizes the strong social value of considering the confidentiality of spouses, of lawyers, doctors, and clergy; in 1996 that was extended to psychotherapists. Members of those groups are not "above" the law because the law recognizes competing values; judges must balance the citizen's obligation to give evidence with society's obligation to protect relationships built on solemn confidences.
Safire would have us believe that a reporting digging for dirt is in the same circumstances as a doctor, lawyer or priest hearing private information. What Safire neglects to mention is that in all those cases the person involved is talking about themselves (or in court, the spouse of a defendant). Safire would have us believe that a source talking about a third person (or persons) deserves the same degree of privacy.
Obviously I disagree. If the information is worth sharing, then it is worth sharing in a lawful manner.
What Safire also fails to mention is that journalists are jailed because a judge has determined that the information is required for a criminal investigation. Any other person called to testify certainly cannot simply say "I promised not to tell" and walk out the door free of consequences. The oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, not "the truth as other people have allowed me to say it".
Safire claims that it is the way that "business is done":
You run into each other at a ballgame or at a dinner, shmooz a little on a bunch of topics, pick up a lead or toss out an idea, later act on it or pass it along to a colleague or forget it. That's been my experience inside and outside the White House; it's how information flows in real life, and it's how the public gets the news beyond the handouts. We slam the door on that at great peril to our freedom.
Let me change the above a bit: you sit down next to a corporate executive who tells you his firm is about to be bought out for a hefty premium above current market value. Is the journalist still allowed to use this information free of criminal consequences? Would you or I be able to?
Of course not! That would be called insider trading. Similarly if a source reveals confidential information that cannot be lawfully revealed, how is it different if the information regards non-financial matters? Indeed, if the information reveals criminal activity then the obligation should be to report it (or walk away from the "deal"), not to embrace the criminal activity because "your job depends on it".
Safire laments the decline of gossip in his profession:
But now we see a reporter in prison, for not revealing part of a conversation she may have had about a story she did not write. As a result, many of us feel a general chill in the air, and will think twice about what we say in private to each other as well as outsiders. I know that lifelong friends and sources will be forced to be guarded in what we say anywhere about everything. In the new world of threatened contempt there are no innocent questions, and a grunt or a nod can get you in trouble.
To which I say good! It will be better if that happens sooner rather than later, too.
Safire claims he cannot do his job:
And there is a more specific chilling effect taking place right now. It imposes a mental "prior restraint" on the gathering of news and the expression of opinion. I've always been able to write what I have learned and what I believe "without fear or favor", freely taking on the high and mighty. But I cannot do that this morning.
I disagree. He has nothing to fear as long as he is not breaking the law, or helping someone else to do so.
Perhaps Mr. Safire realizes the weakness of his argument as he gets a bit hysterical at the end:
I must not anger or upset those who control her incarceration, and who repeatedly threaten to pile on with longer punishment as a criminal unless she betrays her principles as a reporter. Because any harsh criticism of them from me might well be taken out on her, I am constrained to speak gently, as if concerned about treatment of a hostage. That duress, I submit, is an example of what Justice Brennan had in mind about a "chilling effect". I can testify that it works all too well, which is why I will now shut up and look to Congress to pass a law balancing our values and taking the chill out of the air.
People who break the law are hostages? Mr. Safire is starting to sound like an anarchist. Or, given his fear of the judiciary, a militia movement supporter. Either way he has slipped out of the mainstream...at least on this issue.
It is always enlightening to see how people who consider themselves "average" go to extremes to protect that which concerns them the most. Perhaps something good will come of so many journalists experiencing so much angst over this issue.
I won't hold my breath.